Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 396 which names the federal building in Oakland, CA, after Ron Dellums, our distinguished former colleague and dear friend. Mr. Speaker, by designating the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building we honor a colleague who provided the nation and his constituents with an outstanding record of public service. All of us in this chamber know of the leadership Ron Dellums provided on the Armed Services Committee. He defined national security to include not only a strong defense, but a nation with a strong economy and a system of justice that lifts up all its citizens. It is most appropriate that we honor Ron by naming the federal building in Oakland after him because Ron Dellums never forgot where he came from and the people he represented. Ron took their issues of economic justice and civil rights and not only made them his priorities but our nation's as well. Ron stood before us in this chamber and in his splendid speeches reminded us of the need to recognize the human consequences of the legislation we were about to vote on. Ron Dellums always spoke about our responsibility to be compassionate and remember how our actions effect the individual citizen. Mr. Speaker, by naming the federal building in Oakland after Ron Dellums we tell the citizens of Oakland that their government not only honors Ron Dellums but seeks to emulate him by providing the type of service that Ron gave to his constituents for so many years.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Anthony Governale, a former mayor of San Bruno, California and a dedicated community leader of San Mateo County who passed away on December 29, 1998. Born in Brooklyn in 1929, Anthony Governale became interested in politics at a young age, helping his uncle run for a Brooklyn ward seat. He moved to San Francisco in 1950 where he met his wife who was performing in community theater--his other passion that was equal only to politics. Mr. Governale was very active in politics, assisting numerous state, local and federal campaigns as well as serving as President of the San Mateo County Democratic Council. He was elected to public office in 1971 when he won election to the San Bruno City Council. He served as Mayor from 1974-75 and remained on the Council until 1978. Mr. Governale was also active in a broad range of civic groups including serving as Executive Director of the Daly City-Colma Chamber of Commerce, board member of the San Mateo County Fair, and as President of the San Bruno Chamber of Commerce Governing Board up until his death. Mr. Governale also served on the governing board of Shelter Network of San Mateo County and was the first Chairman of the San Mateo County Health Center Foundation Board. The Foundation's resources directly improve the lives of patients at San Mateo County General Hospital. Mr. Speaker, Anthony Governale was a very kind and selfless man dedicated to his family, his community and his country. All who knew him sought his wisdom and advice on issues and life in general. He lives on through his three children and two grandchildren, through his devoted wife Helen, and through all of us who were blessed to be part of his life. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a wonderful man who lived a life of purpose and to extend our deepest sympathy to Helen Governale and the entire Governale family.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today, December 19, 1998, is a day of infamy in the House of Representatives. I believe history will record that on this day, the House of the People, through searing partisanship, disallowed the right of each Member to express his or her own conscience. Today, only votes on impeachment are allowed. A flawed case was brought forward by the House Judiciary Committee. I say ``flawed'' because the Framers' intent for removal of the Chief Executive was set at the highest level--treason, bribery, and high crimes against the people. The President's actions, morally wrong as I judge them, do not meet this constitutional standard. The lessons of history--1868 and 1974 are instructive. Today, our Chamber, in 1998, mirrors the 1868 experience wherein the highly partisan action of the Congress ripped at the fabric of our nation and weakened the Constitution and the Presidency for decades. The 1974 experience differed in that the evidence brought forward and the deliberations were highly bipartisan--some even say nonpartisan. And importantly, the people of our Nation agreed with the actions Congress took. I believe that censure is not barred by the Constitution. The Constitution and the Federalist Papers are silent on censure. Hundreds of scholars have spoken on this. Why would the Republican majority so fear a vote being allowed and taken in the House today? Impeachment of the President is the constitutional equivalent of the death penalty. But the rule of law--a principle so often invoked in the debate--also relies on proportionality. And impeachment of the President for moral laxity is beyond the proportionality of what the President has done and the punishment deserved. The citizens of our nation do not support impeachment. Almost half the Congress does not support impeachment. Without clear consensus in our Nation, without critical bipartisanship in this House, without proportionality relative to the rule of law, and without a clear case that can withstand the scrutiny of history, we stand on a slippery slope, and I believe our Nation is placed in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, our flag is the symbol of our Nation but the Constitution is the soul of our Nation. Today we tear at the soul of our Nation. There is no doubt that by his actions Bill Clinton has brought shame as President. But today this body has set itself on a treacherous course of both weakening the Presidency and diminishing the Constitution. This action in 1998 I believe will haunt us in history just as 1868 did.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today, December 18, 1998, is a day of infamy in the House of Representatives. History will record that on this day the House of the people, through searing, brutal partisanship, disallowed the right of each Member, and this Member, to express their own conscience. Today impeachment and only impeachment counts. It is a day when the overwhelming voices of the American people are turned away. It is a day when the Framers' intent for removal of the chief executive of our Nation, treason, bribery, high crimes against the people, is ignored. I shall vote against the articles of impeachment, because I believe that the case that has been brought against the President has not been proven by the Committee on the Judiciary. I do not believe that the charges rise to what the Framers intended. Mr. Speaker, the flag is the symbol of our Nation, but the Constitution, as Barbara Jordan invoked over and over again in 1974, the Constitution is the soul of our Nation. Today this House is set on a course that tears at the very soul of our Nation. It is wrong, it is imprudent, it is not wise, and it is harmful to the Nation. By his actions, Bill Clinton has brought shame as president. But today this body has set itself on a treacherous course where it is not only weakening the presidency, but diminishing our Constitution. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today before the House to celebrate the life of a most distinguished citizen and incomparable professional, Eben Tisdale, who passed away on October 18, 1998. Eben Tisdale was the dean of high technology advocates in Washington, D.C. He served as Hewlett Packard Company's Government Relations Director in Washington, D.C. since 1984, and is credited with giving the industry a needed daily presence on Capitol Hill. Tisdale joined Hewlett Packard following five years as Vice President of the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association in Washington, D.C. In the 1970's, Eben helped create the Semiconductor Industry Association and the Electronics Association of California. He is also credited with convincing the high technology industry that it needed to establish a strong presence in Washington, D.C. Eben Tisdale was a mentor for countless individuals associated with high technology issues in Washington, D.C. today. Eben was in a class by himself--a top professional, an excellent strategist, a loyal friend and a first-rate human being. He is survived by his wife Ann, a son Anthony and a daughter Jessica. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in expressing condolences to Eben Tisdale's family, and to commemorate his extraordinary service and contributions to the well being of our nation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Laurie Flaherty, a distinguished emergency nurse, who has resided and practiced her profession in my congressional district and who has been recognized by her peers with an extraordinary Award. Laurie Flaherty was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Emergency Nurses Association and inducted into its Nursing Hall of Fame last month at its annual convention in Denver, Colorado. This is an honor that has been bestowed on only twelve other nurses in the history of the organization. This great honor is a fitting recognition of the contributions Laurie Flaherty has made to the profession of nursing and to the health and welfare of our nation's citizens. The Emergency Nurses Association drew special attention to Laurie Flaherty's roles as a teacher and author in pediatric emergency care. Association members extolled her work at the Department of Transportation where she designed and implemented a national strategy for safety programs. And finally, the Association chose Laurie Flaherty to receive these honors because she has never stopped being an emergency staff nurse. Whether in a helicopter in Wisconsin, in an ambulance in Santa Clara County, California, or now working at Suburban Hospital in Maryland, Laurie Flaherty has never forgotten that an emergency nurse must ultimately take care of those in need, one patient at a time. Mr. Speaker, when the ENA honored Laurie Flaherty it was most fitting that they underscored her care and compassion for children. In addition to her expertise and experience in pediatric care, Laurie Flaherty's love and dedication to her daughter, Megan Flaherty, is a testament to what she considers one of her greatest lifetime achievements. Mr. Speaker, Laurie Flaherty represents the best of a group of professionals that give their all to us every day in the emergency departments and trauma centers across our nation. We are exceedingly grateful to them, and today I'm especially proud to have you and our colleagues in the House of Representatives Join me in congratulating Laurie Flaherty, R.N., M.S., and C.E.N. on receiving this prestigious recognition from her peers.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, last week on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, the House of Representatives passed the Conference Report of S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. This legislation, previously passed by the other body, is expected to be signed by the President and closes a loophole in securities litigation by assuring that lawsuits involving nationally traded securities remain in federal courts where they have traditionally been heard. I'm proud to have been the lead Democratic co-sponsor of this legislation. During remarks by my colleagues on the floor regarding S. 1260 there was confusion as to what was included in the joint Managers' Statement signed by the Conferees. The confusion was caused by the fact that in the House version of the Conference Report (published by the House Commerce Committee in the Congressional Record) the final page of the Managers' Statement was omitted. This error ultimately led to a statement made by Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley during floor debate on the final passage of this legislation. He clarified that omission of this very important page was a clerical mistake. Another mistake was made in the printing of the October 13, 1998, Congressional Record of the final passage of the legislation. The extraneous remarks submitted by Chairman Bliley were erroneously placed directly following the Managers' Statement. These remarks were then printed in the same typeface as the conference report, giving the impression that the extraneous remarks were agreed to by the conferees who signed the final conference report. Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record, nothing could be further from the truth. This extraneous material, which should have been placed after the remarks of the distinguished Chairman, does not represent my view pertaining to whether recklessness satisfied the scienter requirement nor should it be regarded as the view of the Conferees. This was a contentious issue during the conference and during discussion of the bill on the floor. Every work of the Managers' Statement on this issue was negotiated. The reason for this is the Managers' Statement is the most authoritative statement related to the legislation. My colleague, Mr. Cox, an opponent of the language in the Managers' Statement conceded this point when in his colloquy with Chairman Bliley he referred to the earlier Managers' Statement in the 1995 Securities Litigation Reform Act ``as the most authoritative construction of the 1995 Act.'' Mr. Speaker, I highlighted this error because as courts and lawyers research the legislative intent of this Act and review our actions as recorded in the Congressional Record, I urge them to thoroughly read each reference to this legislation. It is essential that a bright line be drawn between what is included in the conference report, and those views which were specifically rejected by the Conferees of S. 1260. I'm pleased to report that the Government Printing Office has reprinted the October 13, 1998 Congressional Record and issued a corrected version. The Parliamentarian has corrected the Permanent Record of the House to reflect the true content of the Managers' Statement.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, on October 8, 1998, I cast what I believe was the most significant vote of my entire six-year service in the House of Representatives. The issue of impeachment is as weighty as the Constitution itself--it is a matter that has been debated only three times in the history of our nation. The House of Representatives received two proposals. Both proposals directed the House to proceed with an inquiry for impeachment. Where the proposals differed was in scope and duration. I voted for the proposal that instructed the House Judiciary Committee to conclude its work by the end of the year, and to examine and make determinations on the Starr Report and the Starr Report only. Mr. Speaker, this was not a vote for or against the President. It was, in fact, a vote about fairness to the American people and what is in our national interest. The President must be held accountable by our constitutional process, but the American people should not be punished by how Congress applies that process.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. I am very proud to have been the chief Democratic sponsor of this legislation which is narrowly focused and a bipartisan bill that closes a loophole in the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. With the overwhelming support, which was bipartisan in the last Congress, we passed that act. That bill significantly curbed the filing in Federal courts of costly and meritless suits against fast-growing companies. ``Strike suits'' forced companies to settle, and they did so rather than face drawn out expensive court proceedings. These frivolous suits, traditionally filed in Federal courts, are now being filed in State courts circumventing the intent of the Congress in the 1995 legislation. Studies have shown that over a quarter of these cases were filed in State courts where the Federal reforms do not apply. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act closes this loophole by assuring that lawsuits involving nationally traded securities remain in Federal courts where they have always been heard. This legislation is limited in scope and only affects class action lawsuits involving nationally traded securities. Lawsuits traditionally heard in the Federal courts will continue to be heard there under the Federal law. State regulators would continue to have the ability to enforce State laws and bring civil actions. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act is supported by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Clinton administration, and 231 House cosponsors. I urge the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that I would like to offer my thanks to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the full committee, who has been a wonderful partner. And I also have to acknowledge and thank him for putting up with my constant cajoling and prodding and partnering on this. Certainly to a worthy opponent, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, and to my cosponsor, worthy cosponsor on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), to the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), thanks for their help and accepting my prodding. I have to say that I think all of us are ready to leave town. I am beginning to start to pack my bag this evening. I know we have some other things on the agenda. This, Mr. Speaker, has been the daily work not only of my office and staff, but also from the other side of the aisle. I want to acknowledge all that have been involved in this. I think that this Congress is distinguishing itself by the passage of this bill, and I urge passage and I thank all that have been involved in it. Mr. Speaker, I want to add to today's debate my voice on a particular section of the Conference Report regarding scienter. The Statement of the Managers indicates that ``it was the intent of Congress, as was expressly stated during the legislative debate on the Reform Act, and particularly during the debate on overriding the President's veto, that the Reform Act establish a heightened uniform Federal standard on pleading requirements based upon the pleading standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, the express language of the Reform Act itself carefully provides that plaintiffs must `state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.' The Managers emphasize that neither the Reform Act nor S. 1260 makes any attempt to define that state of mind.'' As the chief Democratic sponsor of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and of the PSLRA of 1995, and a signatory of the conference report on S. 1260, the pleading standards referred to in the Report state with great clarity the intent of Congress with respect to scienter and are ones which I wholeheartedly support.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Town of Atherton in San Mateo County, California as it celebrates its 75th Anniversary. The Town, incorporated in 1923, was named after Faxon Atherton and his daughter-in-law, writer Gertrude Atherton. Faxon Atherton's home, Valparaiso, was built in the 1860s and was among the first of the great estates in San Mateo County. The Town grew as these properties were subdivided and Atherton is now home to some of the best and brightest minds in San Mateo County and the Silicon Valley. From this quiet bedroom community, the leaders of the economic engine that has driven California, emerge daily to fuel further growth. Atherton is an educated, civic-minded community. Its residents are known for their leadership, serving on boards and civic organizations whose work is felt throughout the Bay Area and California. Atherton is also known for the philanthropic endeavors of its residents who give most generously of their resources to assist those issues that are near and dear to their hearts. In the midst of wooded surroundings, Atherton boasts some of the finest educational institutions. Sacred Heart Preparatory, the Menlo School and Menlo College make their home in Atherton. The student population at the Town's eleven schools surpasses the number of residents. These schools are active in the community and educate the next generation of community leaders and Atherton residents. The Town government is mindful of preserving a country atmosphere as urban growth continues in San Mateo County. The Town's General Plan specifically states that Atherton desires ``to preserve its character as a scenic, rural, thickly wooded residential area, with abundant open space and with streets designed primarily as scenic routes rather than for speed of travel.'' With its quiet tree lined streets and beautiful homes, Atherton is one of the jewels in the crown of the 14th Congressional District, a place I'm proud to call my home. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the incorporation of the Town of Atherton and commend its residents for their extraordinary achievements and contributions to our community and our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Henry A. Schmitt, a widely-known and respected leader of the transportation industry for over 35 years, on the occasion of his retirement from CNF Transportation Inc. at the end of this year. He began his CNF career with a background as a trucking security analyst, working for several Wall Street financial firms in New York City for more than 15 years. As Vice President of Corporate Relations, Mr. Schmitt manages CNF's communications with the Wall Street financial investment community. His other responsibilities include CNF's government and corporate relations, including oversight of the company's extensive scholarship and charitable contributions activities. Mr. Schmitt joined CNF from Wall Street in 1978 as Assistant Vice President of Investor Relations. He later became Assistant Vice President and Director of Corporate Relations, and was subsequently named Assistant Vice President and Director of Corporate and Financial Relations. Mr. Schmitt was elected a Vice President in 1988. He is a member of the company's Executive Administrative Committee and Chairman of the CNF Transportation Inc. Political Action Committee. Throughout his career, Mr. Schmitt has been active in a number of industry and professional associations. In addition to participating on many special industry task forces and committees, he served on the Executive Committee and was a member of the Policy and Finance Committee of the American Trucking Associations. The Western Highway Institute elected him as President in 1994 and Chairman in 1995. He also served as both President and Chairman of the Cargo Airline Association (when it was the Air Freight Association). Mr. Schmitt has long been an active member and rose to become chairman of the Public Affairs Council of the Conference Board. He is a past director of the U.S. National Investor Relations Institute, and the founder/chairman of the NIRI's Silicon Valley Chapter as well as an active member of both the New York and San Francisco Securities Analyst Societies, affiliates of the Financial Analysts Federation. A past member of the Advisory Board of the California Institute, he also served as CNF's deputy to both the California Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 1985-1996, and was a member of the California Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Council. When on Wall Street, he served as chairman of the Motor Carrier Analysts Group, the association of senior security analysts with responsibility for trucking industry securities. The Citizens Scholarship Foundation of America elected him to serve on its National Advisory Board of Trustees for the period 1995-2001. In 1996, he was appointed a trustee of the Charles Armstrong School, an elementary school in Belmont, California that educates children with problems of dyslexia. He assumed the additional post of school treasurer in 1998. A native of Rochester, New York, Mr. Schmitt attended Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, earning a bachelor's degree in finance in 1963. I'm very proud to have the Schmitt family as constituents. I'm grateful for the countless contributions Mr. Schmitt has made throughout his career. Few have contributed as much to their industry and by doing so California's 14th Congressional District has been enhanced as well. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this exceptional individual who has given so much to his industry, his community, and his country. We wish Henry Schmitt and his wife a happy, healthy and rewarding retirement.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today before the House to celebrate the life of a most distinguished citizen and incomparable friend, retired Superior Court Judge Frank Piombo, who passed away peacefully at his home in Redwood City, California, on September 21, 1998. A Memorial Mass was held at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Catholic Church in Judge Piombo's parish on September 25th. Born and reared in San Francisco, Frank Piombo was a resident of Redwood City for 51 years, making the Bay Area his lifelong home. For this decision we, the residents of San Mateo County, are very grateful because we shall forever remember the contributions he made both to our community and our country. To his country, Frank gave years of dedicated and courageous service. During World War II, he served in the 100th U.S. Infantry, earning a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. After the War, he continued to serve in the Army Reserves, achieving the rank of Colonel. A distinguished graduate of the California educational system, Judge Piombo did undergraduate work at Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley, graduating from U.C.'s Hastings College of the Law in 1949. To his community, Frank Piombo devoted himself to a career in public service. He was a Deputy District Attorney for San Mateo County, as well as City Attorney for the City of Millbrae. In 1971, he was appointed a Municipal Court Judge, and later that year Governor Ronald Reagan elevated Frank Piombo to the Superior Court. His devotion to the community extended beyond his judicial duties. He was active in the Elks, the Eagles, and the Sons of Italy. He was known for contriving some of the best practical jokes on scores of people and these stories are now legendary. His love of card games was a well established fact, and he was known to show up at a moment's notice for a game. Nothing in the world meant more to Frank Piombo than his family. He was married for 47 years to the love of his life, Lydia, and they were blessed with five children: Lee, Robert, Nancy, Susan and Jan, as well as ten magnificent grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Frank Piombo's life was a beautiful combination--his deep pride in his Italian-American heritage, his patriotism rooted in the Constitution and the law, his great faith which gave him guidance and unswerving belief in the beatitudes, and love of the family which was unparalleled. His gift to me was our friendship and I shall treasure this all my life. I ask that the entire House honor this good and faithful citizen because of how he lived and who he was. Frank Piombo was the best of America.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution believing that in the national interest, in the national interest, that we have a brief and concise hearing. (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act. As the lead Democratic co-sponsor of the House version of S. 2392, I'm pleased the House is considering this very critical legislation which will assist businesses and government agencies in solving the Year 2000 problem. This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support here in the House, the Administration, and a wide spectrum of American industry. The threat of lawsuits as a result of Year 2000 problems has kept some companies from releasing information for fear the information could be used against them in law suits. This fear of liability has put a stranglehold on public disclosures about Year 2000 readiness. Mr. Speaker, I've met with senior executives from the high technology industry--in particular, I've spoken with several General Counsels from these companies. They've told me that without this legislation, they must recommend to their companies that Year 2000 information remain locked up. The bill addresses this very serious problem by facilitating the voluntary exchange of information for Year 2000 preparedness solutions through the issuance of statements to assist in Year 2000 remediation. Mr. Speaker, businesses and government organizations need to be candid about their progress on Year 2000 readiness. This legislation frees organizations to communicate more openly with the public and, just as importantly, with each other, about the status of Year 2000 work on critical systems. This legislation is not about limiting liability, it's about limiting disincentives to disclosure. We need to create an environment that fosters cooperation and consultation, not fear and paranoia. There are 456 days until January 1, 2000. This bi-partisan legislation sends a strong signal in helping our Nation prepare its computer systems for the new millennium. I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Dreier for his work on this issue. I believe this legislation goes a long way to solving the Y2K problem.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the committee, for her leadership on this issue. I rise today in the hope that the gentleman, the distinguished subcommittee chairman, will not insist on his point of order and also, of course, in support of the Pelosi amendment to add the $14.5 billion to the foreign ops appropriations bill and fully fund the IMF. I think that together we can inoculate the global economic system with the infusion of the $14.5 billion in this bill. I say that because, number one, America's economic interests are tied to this. When we talk about the American taxpayer, we are also talking about the American investor. The American investor through its 401(k)s and many other vehicles invests in foreign economies. We see not only an Asia flu but something that is becoming contagious in many places around the world. We speak with pride about a global economy, but when it comes to the crisis, we are not willing to fill the needle and give the inoculation that is needed. I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this, because this is not only in America's interest, in the taxpayers' interests, in the investors' interests, but in the interest of stabilizing a global economy which America the great has a huge investment and interest in.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise today in support of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment to the foreign operations bill. Section 907, as so many of my colleagues have stated already, of the Freedom Support Act, places restrictions on the aid that the United States gives to the Government of Azerbaijan until that country ends its aggression and lifts its illegal blockades against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. The government of Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh for 9 years. Day by day, 9 years. That is a very, very long time. Cutting off the transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital supplies, creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the United States to send emergency assistance to Armenia. Now, for those Members who may not be joining in on this effort, who may be willing to reconsider their positions in prior years, just think of the irony of what it is costing the United States taxpayer in this situation. Because of the blockade that many Members allow to keep on the books, we then spend even more money to send emergency assistance to Armenia. Strictly on a fiscal basis, if one does not want to deal with this on a humanitarian basis, on the issues relative to a democracy, consider that at a time when Armenia is introducing market reforms and integrating its economy with the West, the blockade has virtually isolated Armenia from the rest of the world. Azerbaijan controls the majority of the access to Armenia, a country that is landlocked. We should not repeal section 907, because Azerbaijan has taken no demonstrable steps to lift these illegal blockades. Direct assistance should not be provided to a government with fundamental human rights and corruption flaws. Mr. Chairman, I think that I am the only member of the entire Congress of Armenian descent, of both Azerian and Armenian descent. The Armenian people fled and suffered and came to this land, as so many others did, not to take anything from this country, but to contribute, to enlarge on its democracy, to contribute to its economic growth, and to uphold the principles that they found so attractive that they would travel around the world and come to this beacon of light and hope. Armenia represents and upholds democratic principles. That is why we should join with her and we should support her today. And when we do, we will harken back to all of the peoples that have come from around the world to this land, the United States of America, and its democracy. That is really what this vote is about. How proud I am to join with my colleagues that are offering this amendment. And, for anyone that even has a twinge of rethinking this, please join us. It is the right place to be, for all of the right reasons.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague, Representative Dreier and I introduced the ``Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure Act.'' Its purpose is to help solve the Year 2000 computer problem. Billions of computer chips are in devices from telephones to oil rig valves, and billions of lines of software code now run computer systems we rely on for issuing paychecks to operating traffic signals. Now we are faced with the threat these devices and systems may not operate because they cannot read the number 2000 as a year. The challenge to solve the so-called ``Y2K'' problem is an incredibly complex process in our interconnected world. Each of us has a stake in all of us succeeding. After all, if a business that issues paychecks or another that operates our elevators fixes its Y2K problems, what will be accomplished if the electricity needed by those businesses cannot be delivered or transit systems cannot provide transportation for the employees of those businesses? Solving this problem means that every company must make available as much information as is possible, as soon as possible, so that others can use it to meet the threat present in the Y2K problem. Unfortunately, current law provides an opportunity to file frivolous lawsuits against those providing this information and subject them to costly litigation. Consequently, these Y2K ``Good Samaritans'' are reluctant to provide vital information because of the litigation they may have to endure. This bill will give companies the freedom to disclose Year 2000 readiness information to help all of us deal with this unique crisis, without penalizing them for their efforts. With January 1, 2000 fast approaching, more information rather than less--shared sooner rather than later--may be the difference between inconvenience and disaster. I am pleased to see the Administration has proposed similar legislation to address this issue. It is a worthy effort, although it may fall short in some areas. For example, the Administration bill protects statements that are good-faith mistakes but does not include protection for statements shown to be true. The bill introduced today by myself and Mr. Dreier will protect all Year 2000 disclosure statements, giving companies incentives to provide more information, not less. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can quickly pass this timely legislation during this Congress, and I look forward to working with the Administration and others on this important issue. Also, I welcome suggestions on how we may improve the legislation introduced today. The Y2K challenge is extensive and the stakes are very high. I believe the legislation we have introduced here today is a critical step in successfully meeting that challenge. I hope my colleagues will join me and Mr. Dreier in supporting this bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support H.R. 872, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act. The broad consensus of support that the bill now enjoys is the result of many months of hard work by many, especially the bill's sponsor, Representative George Gekas. ``Biomaterials'' are the raw materials that are used to make medical implants and devices. Examples of biomaterials include silicone, polyester, urethane, and polycarbonate. These materials have hundreds of non-medical uses, but their use in medical devices is one of the most important. Despite having no role in the design, testing, or production of implantable medical products, biomaterials suppliers are exposed to millions of dollars in litigation costs from product liability suits. Courts have overwhelmingly found biomaterials suppliers not liable, but the costly litigation quickly overwhelms the relatively small financial benefits of selling to the medical device market. For this reason, many biomaterials suppliers no longer sell their products for medical use. H.R. 872 would limit the liability of biomaterials suppliers to instances of genuine fault. It provides expedited dismissal for biomaterials suppliers, without extensive discovery or other legal costs, in product liability suits where plaintiffs allege harm from a medical implant. Without congressional action, patients will lose access to life- enhancing and life-saving implantable medical devices and some device manufacturers will close their doors. Passage of this legislation is critically important for the future of Millions of patients and the medical device industry. Anyone that uses a medical device or knows someone that uses a medical device should be heartened by the action of the House today. This bill is a victory for consumers and ensures that the United States' leadership in medical technology innovation will continue. In closing, I want to emphasize how important it is that this bill remain narrow in scope. As written, it addresses a specific, well- documented public health problem. Any effort to expand the scope of the bill by our colleagues in the other body to include broader product liability reforms will seriously endanger passage this year. On behalf of the patients who depend on medical technology, we cannot afford to let that happen.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Senator Alfred E. Alquist, a distinguished former member of the California State Legislature and committed community leader, on the happy occasion of his ninetieth birthday. Senator Alquist served in the California Legislature for thirty-four years, representing his constituents in both the State Assembly and the State Senate. Senator Alquist embodies the best of public service. Born August 2, 1908 in Memphis, Tennessee, he graduated from Southwestern University in Memphis and began serving our country as a navigation and meteorology instructor for the U.S. Army's Air-Sea Emergency Rescue Service during World War II. Senator Alquist took an active role in politics as a participant in local and national Democratic Party affairs when he moved to California in 1947. His career in the California Legislature began in 1962 with his election to the State Assembly, where he served two terms. In 1966, he won a seat in the State Senate and was re-elected every time thereafter for the next two decades, a testament to his outstanding ability to represent the diverse needs and interests of his constituents. Senator Alquist quickly earned a reputation for championing countless efforts to guarantee public safety and welfare for the people of California. The State Legislature passed more than forty earthquake safety bills penned by Senator Alquist during his terms of office, among them the measure which created the Seismic Safety Commission. He worked tirelessly to improve deadly highway conditions in his district and was instrumental in passing legislation to establish the Santa Clara County Transportation District in 1972. As Chairman of the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee, he led the effort to promote conservation and the use of alternative energy sources. While holding the Chairmanship, he co-authored legislation to establish the California State Energy Commission. Not only did the Senator successfully ensure that environmental concerns were considered, but he also fought to improve California's education system, in one instance holding out as the lone vote against a tax rebate because he felt that the funds were sorely needed for schools. He also chaired the Senate Finance Committee, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and, after the Senate split the Senate Financing Committee into two separate committees, the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. Mr. Speaker, Senator Alquist's life is instructive to everyone who knows him. Because of his vision, his compassion, and his superior leadership, remarkable contributions have been made to our community and our country throughout his ninety years of life. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this noble man and wishing him the happiest of birthdays as he celebrates his ninetieth.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 4250, and let me tell the American people why. Privacy, privacy, privacy. Under the Republican bill our medical records are not safe. Any hospital, HMO or pharmacy that keeps our medical records can disclose them without our consent. Imagine suffering from depression, paying for prescriptions out of our own pocket to keep our condition private. Under the Republican plan, a pharmacy could disclose the use of these prescriptions to an employer. Imagine a health care bureaucrat reviewing someone's family's medical history without their knowledge. Even more frightening is the very real threat that our medical history could then be used against us to deny us employment or when we apply for a mortgage. Anyone obtaining our medical records could distribute them to a divorce lawyer, to a newspaper or a political campaign. A business could investigate its employees to find out who has potential health problems. They could review our family's medical records to find out if any of our children were sick and how seriously they were, and the insurance company could then raise our premiums. Wake up, America. Under the Republican plan the patient does not have to give their consent or be informed about the transfer of their medical records. This is an outrage of the highest order. This plan does not protect patients, it destroys the privacy that exists between doctors and patients. It should be called the Puncture of Privacy Act, and the American people should reject it and the Members of the House of Representatives should, too. Vote for the Dingell-Ganske bill and reject H.R. 4250 on the grounds of privacy; if nothing else, on the grounds of privacy.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Susan Gail Yoachum, a magnificent human being and extraordinary journalist of the San Francisco Bay Area who passed away on June 22, 1998. She was the devoted wife of Mike Carlson, the daughter of Betty and the late Charles G. Yoachum, and the sister and relative of Charles Yoachum and his family of Dallas. Susan Yoachum was a star from the moment she was born in Dallas, Texas on May 12, 1955. Her passion for writing emerged early in her life as she became the National Spelling Champion in 1969. She pursued her talent at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, from which she graduated in 1975 with Bachelor of Arts degrees in journalism and political science. She was a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, the Independent Journal in Marin County, the San Jose Mercury News, and the San Francisco Chronicle, covering some of the largest political stories of her era. Her talent for seeking out and delivering breaking stories went unmatched in political journalism. This talent was recognized in 1990, when she was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news, and again in 1994, when she was honored as Journalist of the Year by the Northern California chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. She earned a reputation amongst her peers and those about whom she wrote as a tenacious, witty, and sophisticated reporter, armed always with a penetrating question and a warm smile. Since 1990, she had covered national, state, and local politics for the San Francisco Chronicle, where she was promoted to Political Editor in 1994. As a popular political analyst, she was often a guest on TV and radio programs, from CNN's ``Inside Politics'' to a myriad of Bay Area radio shows. In 1991, Susan Yoachum was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. During her seven-year struggle with breast cancer, she not only continued to produce brilliant work, but she also became a breast cancer activist. In an effort to raise awareness about this horrible disease, she frequently spoke to women's organizations, political groups, and fellow victims. In 1997, she courageously wrote about her own battle with cancer, announcing that after being in remission since 1992, her cancer had returned. She strove to humanize the statistic that 180,000 women get breast cancer every year, personalizing the cold facts with her own face. Mr. Speaker, Susan Yoachum was an inspiration to us all. She educated us with her sharp journalistic talent, she personalized and publicized what breast cancer is about, she fought for a cure, and she made lasting contributions to our community and our country. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a woman who lived a remarkable yet all too brief life. We extend our deepest sympathy to Mike Carlson and the entire Yoachum family. Susan Yoachum's life was an example of the strength of the human spirit, and because of her, hope lives on.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in support of H.R. 1689, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. Over a year ago Representative White and I introduced this legislation. Since then there has been a groundswell of support for this legislation. The Senate approved the companion bill, S. 1260, by a vote of 79-21. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Clinton Administration have endorsed the legislation. The House bill we are considering today has 232 cosponsors. Today, under Suspension of the Rules, the House will pass this important piece of legislation. I want to thank you Chairman Bliley for the open way you have worked to bring this bill to the floor. In the past few months both the majority and minority side have worked to tighten and clean up the bill language before us today. I believe it is a much improved product. As the primary Democratic sponsor, let me briefly discuss the need for this bill. In 1995, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. This law represented a bipartisan attempt to deal with the problem of meritless ``strike suits'' filed against high-growth companies. In most instances, these cases were settled out of court because companies made the calculation that it was cheaper to pay off the strike suit lawyer than become engaged in a protracted legal fight. These class actions have had a considerable impact on the high technology industry, especially those in Silicon Valley which I have the privilege to represent. High technology companies account for 34% of all the securities issuers sued last year, and 62% of all cases are filed in California. It's ironic that the very companies that have contributed disproportionately to the economic health of our nation and have been a great source of wealth for investors are the ones being harassed. They are being penalized for success. The 1995 reforms are now being undermined by a shift to state courts of cases involving nationally traded securities, which prior to 1995 were heard in federal courts. Analysis shows a clear motivation for this shift to state courts. The SEC staff report found that 53% of the cases filed cited claims based on forward-looking statements. Also, as Chairman Levitt pointed out in testimony last year before the House Commerce Committee, 55% of the cases filed at the state level are essentially identical to those brought by the same law firm in federal court. Migration to state courts is not a minor problem. It represents an undermining of core reforms implemented in the 1995 Reform Act, because the Reform Act relies on uniform application and enforcement of the law to be effective. Without this uniform standard, the law is undermined, the strike suits continue, and companies and investors are held hostage. This is particularly true for two key elements of the 1995 Reform Act: Safe Harbor and Stay of Discovery. When companies refrain from disclosing information about their projected performance, investors are unable to make informed decisions. Most companies are eager to talk about what they are doing. But the threat of meritless suits places a chill on disclosure. This is because any Wall Street analyst's expectation can cause a company's stock to fluctuate, even if the company is growing at a rate of 20% or 30%. Those filing the strike suit then claim that any forward-looking statement, even if it was clearly an estimate and not a promise of stock performance, is grounds for a civil action. Companies responded by ceasing to make forward-looking statements. The 1995 Reform Act instituted a safe harbor for companies making forward-looking statements as long as those statements were not false or misleading. However, because of the threat of actions in state courts where there is no safe harbor, this provision still has yet to be implemented. I've received letters from hundreds of business leaders who say they will continue to refrain from making forward looking statements as long as the threat of litigation not covered by safe harbor remains. As a result the most investor and consumer-friendly portion of the 1995 Reform Act is not being used. The second key element of reform is the stay of discovery pending motions to dismiss. Discovery is often the most costly part of the litigation process. It's especially burdensome when plaintiff lawyers tie up executives' time and request, literally, millions of pages of documents. As long as this threat is present, companies will have a greater incentive to settle early and avoid the cost of discovery than fight--even if the case has no merit. To counter this problem we enacted a stay of discovery in the 1995 Act. This does not prohibit plaintiffs from filing their cases, nor does it prohibit cases that have merit from moving forward. It merely delays the discovery process until a judge can rule on a motion to dismiss. Because of the shift to state courts, the stay of discovery is not in place. The threat of huge legal costs remains and the incentive to settle meritless cases continues. Even worse, plaintiff lawyers are able to file a case in state courts, go through a process of discovery--basically a fishing expedition--and then take those documents into federal court. It is this undermining of the federal law that prompted Representative White and I to introduce our bill. I would like to make clear that the bill is not a federal power grab. We are returning to federal courts cases which until the 1995 Reform Act had always been heard in federal courts. It is limited in scope, and only extends to private class action lawsuits involving nationally-traded securities. State regulators and law enforcement officials maintain their full range of options to take both criminal and civil action in state or federal court. It's a targeted approach to a specific problem. I want to emphasize that this legislation is not premature. In some instances, the impact of certain provisions of the Reform Act is not clear because the courts are just beginning to consider these cases. This may be true for cases involving the pleading standard or lead plaintiff reforms, but in the case of the stay of discovery and safe harbor provisions this concern does not apply. As long as the threat of state court actions remains, the safe harbor reform will never be implemented. Companies will refrain from making forward-looking statements and investors will be denied access to information. In short, there are no cases whose outcomes we can wait for, because there are no cases. The same is true for the stay of discovery provision. It is the threat of costly discovery that motivates companies to settle. As long as that threat remains at the state court level, we will never know if the stay of discovery will succeed in weeding out meritless cases. To build a strong base of support and increase the chances for approval, I have worked with supporters of the Uniform Standards legislation and SEC Chairman Levitt to address three specific concerns that he raised. First, the so-called ``Delaware Problem.'' The SEC was concerned that language in our bill would pre-empt, not only cases traditionally filed in federal courts prior to 1995, but also could pre-empt state laws regarding informing stockholders of mergers or other sell orders. These corporate actions are traditionally monitored by state regulators, and in the case of Delaware there is a long standing common law tradition. It was not our intention to undermine this state law, and working with the SEC, the American Bar Association and the Delaware Bar, I believe we have developed effective language to carve-out these cases from our bill. Second, the definition of Class Action is clarified. We attempted to close a loophole, and the language of H.R. 1689 encompassed a large category of private actions. The SEC asked that the bill be modified to define class action as something closer to the current federal understanding. This language, along with the Delaware language, was added during the Senate consideration and House Commerce Committee mark-up of the Uniform Standards bill. The third issue is that of recklessness. During the Senate consideration of the S. 1260 the companion bill to H.R. 1689, language was included during the debate and the committee report. This language was inserted to clarify what was intended by the Congress in its passage of the 1995 Reform Act. As part of the House debate Representative Cox and I engaged in a colloquy that ``Congress, did not in adopting the Reform Act, intend to alter standards of liability under the Exchange Act.'' Congress heard testimony from the Securities and Exchange Commission and others regarding the scienter requirement under a possible national standard of litigation for nationally-traded securities. I understand this concern arises out of certain Federal district courts' interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PL 104-67). In that regard I want to emphasize that the clear intent in 1995 and our continuing intent in this legislation is that neither the PSLRA nor H.R. 1689 in any way alters the scienter standard in federal securities fraud suits. It was the intent of Congress, as we expressly stated during the debate on overriding the President's veto, that the PSLRA establish a national uniform standard on pleading requirements by adopting the pleading standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed the express language of the PSLRA itself carefully provides that plaintiffs must ``state with particularity facts given rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.'' Neither the PSLRA nor H.R. 1689 makes any attempt to define that state of mind. As Senator Dodd, the primary Democratic sponsor of this bill and the Reform Act, has said, ``the recklessness standard has been a good standard over the years and ought not to be tampered with, in my opinion.'' I couldn't agree more. Before I conclude I would also like to pay special tribute to subcommittee ranking member Thomas Manton. The grace and dignity with which he has conducted himself as a Member of this body is a model for those of us who remain, and he will be sorely missed. During Commerce Committee consideration of H.R. 1689, he included language related to extending SEC's ability to enforce. I support his amendment and pledge to work with him as this bill goes forward to restore his amendment. Lastly, I would like to thank all those involved in bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today, including Chairman Bliley, Ranking Member Oxley, Representative Tauzin, and Ranking Member Manton, I would especially like to thank Ranking Member Dingell and Representative Markey, even though they oppose the legislation; the constructive and helpful contributions they made have improved this bill. I would also like to commend my partner, Representative White, for all of his work and attention to this bill. I thank my colleagues for their support and look forward to this bill becoming law.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to begin the colloquy.

Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from California.